• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

The Cult of Lincoln

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,331
Location
Valhalla
Your post has that "ends justify the means" taste to it. Just curious. Do you feel that way?
I have to side step the issue. I neither like or justify the means - it is what it is.

I am glad that we are today one country, rather than two.......and you?
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,276
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
This is just to pass along ammunition to others who might find it useful.

Which president destroyed the legitimacy of the American Revolution? (Lincoln, of course.)

How? Here's how.

Lincoln denied and refused states' rights to secede from the union.

The American Revolution was a revolution in a manner of speaking. To call it a revolution is just a turn of phrase. The colonial armies did not sail to England and overthrow the king.
It was actually a secession. The colonies seceded from Britain.

Separately, I've long wondered about a certain contradiction. The constitution does not prohibit secession. The Tenth Amendment expressly states that powers not delegated to the fedgov, nor prohibited to the states are reserved to the states. Meaning, secession was and still is a constitutional state power. Re-wind a bit to the Articles of Confederation. What was the full title of the agreement between the states? Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. So, according to Lincoln's logic, a perpetual confederation can be legitimately dissolved, but a non-perpetual union cannot be dissolved.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,912
Location
North Carolina
I have to side step the issue. I neither like or justify the means - it is what it is.

I am glad that we are today one country, rather than two.......and you?

I would have had no problem with being two separate countries. No different than Canada is a separate North American country. I am surprised Lincoln stopped at just the south. If not for the war, and the war on Native Americans he probably would have tried to force Canada, and Mexico into the Union.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,276
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
SNIP I am glad that we are today one country, rather than two.......and you?

(Commenting on the ideas in general; not addressing the author of the quote in particular.)


Hmmm. So much for Robert E. Lee's declaration that he could not take up his sword against his country.

Glad for one country? Not me. It was never intended to be "one country". Well, it was not sold to the populace as one country when it was being pitched, at any rate. See the Anti-federalist Papers for commentary and prediction of what would happen if the constitution went into effect. The self-styled Federalists wrote oh-so soothing words. Read both the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers. Then decide for yourself who was right.

As early as 1870, one commenter wrote that the constitution has either given us the government we have or was powerless to stop it. Meaning, the fedgov was already an overbearing monster by that time.

The key reason this is "one country" is because of that overbearing monster. So, no. I'm not glad.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,276
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
I would have had no problem with being two separate countries. No different than Canada is a separate North American country. I am surprised Lincoln stopped at just the south. If not for the war, and the war on Native Americans he probably would have tried to force Canada, and Mexico into the Union.

Good point. I hadn't thought of that. Thanks for bringing it up.

I can definitely see myself getting a passport just to head south and enjoy some Georgia peaches, or buy some sorghum syrup.

Wait! What am I saying!?! No, no, no. I'd just move south! No passport needed! Ain't much up north I'd want, so I'd just do without that passport.

:)
 
Last edited:

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,689
Location
Whatcom County
You forgot what president ordered mass executions of native Americans.

+1 I actually thought about posting a few links yet figured it would be good for other commentators.

It was his army he created (a now standing army) that went on the genocidal rampage across the west.

It is no wonder the Cherokee nation chose to side with the confederacy, I think it was with political insight that the south then would be restrained to the existing confederacy if they won and the north would be weakened for imperialistic yankee conquest.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,689
Location
Whatcom County
I have to side step the issue. I neither like or justify the means - it is what it is.

I am glad that we are today one country, rather than two.......and you?

The ends is what the ends is. Good point although the means is what is being discussed here and was the ends worth it?

Was the destruction of one the greatest checks on federal tyranny worth it?

I like to differentiate the word country from the word nation. Still to this day the states are different countries with different cultures that tie them and separate them from other regions and varying states.

Yet there is no guarantee there would have continued two different nations in what is now the present 48 mainland states. IF Lincoln would not have invaded, the south would have been without Virginia and some important other states.
Maybe a smaller empire wouldn't have been able to wreak so much havoc it has in the world, with its imperialistic ventures.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,689
Location
Whatcom County
I would have had no problem with being two separate countries. No different than Canada is a separate North American country. I am surprised Lincoln stopped at just the south. If not for the war, and the war on Native Americans he probably would have tried to force Canada, and Mexico into the Union.

Quebec would have been a 14th colony that joined the revolution if it wasn't for the horrible way the Yankees treated them because they were Catholic.

This is an interesting point you bring up, and if he had conquered Canada and Mexico, would the question now be "aren't you glad there is only one country in North America?"

An intriguing aspect to this is that while Lincoln was centralizing the states in the Americas, Italian rulers and German rulers were also destroying their republics and centralizing power there. All this contributed greatly to how great WWI and WWII was. I doubt that such utter destruction could have been done by smaller states with less power.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,689
Location
Whatcom County
(Commenting on the ideas in general; not addressing the author of the quote in particular.)


Hmmm. So much for Robert E. Lee's declaration that he could not take up his sword against his country.

Glad for one country? Not me. It was never intended to be "one country". Well, it was not sold to the populace as one country when it was being pitched, at any rate. See the Anti-federalist Papers for commentary and prediction of what would happen if the constitution went into effect. The self-styled Federalists wrote oh-so soothing words. Read both the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers. Then decide for yourself who was right.

As early as 1870, one commenter wrote that the constitution has either given us the government we have or was powerless to stop it. Meaning, the fedgov was already an overbearing monster by that time.

The key reason this is "one country" is because of that overbearing monster. So, no. I'm not glad.

Spooner was an awesome example of an abolitionist (not one who was an abolitionist for xenophobic reasons) who lived before and through and post the war of centralization, who aptly and bravely pointed out the real reasons for Lincolns tyranny.

I also like the comments and speeches by Senator Vallandigham (D) of Ohio, who was also an abolitionist. Lincoln did not he had him imprisoned and then deported to the South.

His speech to congress "Executive Usurpation" points out greatly the dictatorial acts of Lincoln.

Here's a link..... https://books.google.com/books?id=n...e&q=Executive Usurpation vallandigham&f=false
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,159
Location
here nc
btw, thanks svg, et al., for providing your learned perception(s) of the definition(s) on of some of similar meaning words. i for one, wouldn't have differentiated country verse nation.

ipse
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,689
Location
Whatcom County
btw, thanks svg, et al., for providing your learned perception(s) of the definition(s) on of some of similar meaning words. i for one, wouldn't have differentiated country verse nation.

ipse

Thank you for the compliment, my mindset may have been influenced a bit by spending some formulative years in "Indian Country"....;)
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,689
Location
Whatcom County
Lincoln supported the Corwin Amendment, which would make slavery a permanent institution of the US.

He made this support and his willingness not to interfere with slavery explicit in his 1st inaugural address. He also made it very very clear, he would invade states who refused to pay his high tariffs that punished southern economy and favored the north's.
 
B

Bikenut

Guest
Just had a discussion with a liberal friend about Lincoln that moved into talking about slavery. When I asked if the North had the right to force the South to stop slavery he tried to evade the question by talking about the immorality of slavery itself. When I wouldn't allow him to evade the question by redirecting the discussion into an area he wanted giving him control of the conversation and pressed him to stick to the topic and answer the question he accused me of shutting him down and not listening to his answer.

Again I pressed him to answer if the North had the right to force the South to stop slavery he became quite irate and said that yes, the North had the right. But when I asked him why he said he answered my question and wasn't going to talk about it anymore.

Ahhhhh.... liberals. Do exactly what they accuse you of and then.... feel.. so self righteously vindicated.

And yes, that conversation actually happened just about a half hour ago in my kitchen.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
B

Bikenut

Guest
--Requested deletion of post by original submitter--
I am grateful for my liberal friend because he never fails to remind me of how devious some folks are at redirecting conversations away from facts into emotional manipulation in order to allow the liberal to..... feel... superior.

And, in the interest of full disclosure, the friend.... along with the conversation I mentioned earlier... actually exist so any resemblance to anyone in any other State is pure coincidence.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,276
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Just had a discussion with a liberal friend about Lincoln that moved into talking about slavery. When I asked if the North had the right to force the South to stop slavery he tried to evade the question by talking about the immorality of slavery itself. When I wouldn't allow him to evade the question by redirecting the discussion into an area he wanted giving him control of the conversation and pressed him to stick to the topic and answer the question he accused me of shutting him down and not listening to his answer.

Again I pressed him to answer if the North had the right to force the South to stop slavery he became quite irate and said that yes, the North had the right. But when I asked him why he said he answered my question and wasn't going to talk about it anymore.

Ahhhhh.... liberals. Do exactly what they accuse you of and then.... feel.. so self righteously vindicated.

And yes, that conversation actually happened just about a half hour ago in my kitchen.

Hang on a second.

Did your friend basically say that Lincoln without constitutional authority invaded southern states because of slavery recognized by the Framers in the constitution?
 

jammer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2008
Messages
78
Location
, ,
Koskalaka

Many love him or hate him. Some see him as being right for the time to save/preserve the union, which I believe was his mission/goal.

That he broke rules, ignored laws, and created powers where there had been none is amply in evidence.

Whatever your feelings, the union was preserved. Might something else have been effective, worked. We'll never know.

I anticipate this thread will cleave members into opposing groups with little good, outcome/results.
Koskalaka
 
Top